The morality of an act: CCC 1756 and CCC 2263

[Jaaanosik]

Oh, ok, I can see that. Wait, did you just duck again? LOL, LOL…

C’mon, before we talk about other instances, let’s clear up this one. I think I deserve a meaningful answer to post 93!

My answer is in my posts #3, #7, … and many more. I am not going to retype it.
I can not help you if you do not understand it.

 

[LongingSoul]

There is no moral object if there is no agent acting with intentions and under some circumstances.

There is objective moral law.

There is an act. It is called murder. It is the deliberate and voluntary taking of anothers life. No matter who, why, where or how it’s done… it is always immoral.

You are trying to make the human mind and will the prime mover… the first cause. As theists, we start from the principle that God is the Prime Mover and First Cause. God gave us life and nobody has the right to take that from anybody else.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist.”

This is moral relativism.

 

[Jaaanosik]

There is objective moral law.

There is an act. It is called murder. It is the deliberate and voluntary taking of anothers life. No matter who, why, where or how it’s done… it is always immoral.

You are trying to make the human mind and will the prime mover… the first cause. As theists, we start from the principle that God is the Prime Mover and First Cause. God gave us life and nobody has the right to take that from anybody else.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist.”

This is moral relativism.

Only if there is an agent that did the act and a conclusion of the first stage analysis is that the agent did not act in a self-defense.
This is objective description of the reality. It does not deny existence of the objective moral law.
There is no relativism in it.

 

[LucyEm]

My answer is in my posts #3, #7, … and many more. I am not going to retype it.
I can not help you if you do not understand it.

That’s a shame. I can understand the reticence to answer though.

We must accept the statement provided by the Pope - expressed here I believe as infallible doctrine:
Pope John Paul II in EVANGELIUM VITAE 57:

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 51

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end.

And we must also accept that the Act depicted below is of the same species described by the Pope, and therefore must be immoral:

Deliberately choose Metho Injection → Baby Dies → Mum Recovers

I don’t think there is room to haggle further on this one, but I would like to come back to you on the nature of intrinsic evil and something you said earlier about the overlapping of Intentions, Moral Object and Circumstances. **

 

[Jaaanosik]

That’s a shame. I can understand the reticence to answer though.

We must accept the statement provided by the Pope - expressed here I believe as infallible doctrine:

And we must also accept that the Act depicted below is of the same species described by the Pope, and therefore must be immoral:

Deliberately choose Metho Injection → Baby Dies → Mum Recovers

I don’t think there is room to haggle further on this one, but I would like to come back to you on the nature of intrinsic evil and something you said earlier about the overlapping of Intentions, Moral Object and Circumstances. **
I explained how I see what deliberate means in post #87.
Did you miss it?

 

[LongingSoul]

I explained how I see what deliberate means in post #87.
Did you miss it?

In post #87, you are trying to conflate the authority to act of an individual with the authority of the state who are charged with protecting the common good. There are very important differences.

I addressed those differences in my post #9.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12347558#post12347558

The traditional teaching of the Church recognises that both just war and capital punishment can possibly serve the common good in certain circumstances as legitimate defenses of the common good. Those deliberate measures apply only to the state.

 

[LucyEm]

There is no moral object if there is no agent acting with intentions and under some circumstances.

Let’s start off with the above. Always good to build from a point of agreement!

Now you’ve made a couple of similar statements to the above, such as:

Jaaanosik:

The intentions and circumstances shape the moral object.

Now, I agree with these statements to a degree, but I resist the temptation (which you do not) to be rather flexible in determining the moral object, as I hope the following clarifies.

Your statements above touch on the nature of “Intrinsic Evil”. Let’s remember what that is:
Pope in Veritas Splendor:

1. In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture…….

If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. “As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?”.

So, here again we have the Pope saying Intentions and Circumstances can’t transform what is intrinsically evil [which is reflected in CCC1761]

It’s interesting to hunt around and make a list of just what “intrinsic evils” has the Church identified. There are quite a few actually and you can find them in various places such as in Guardium et Spes, Veritas Splendor, etc. And when you look at them, you discover that they are not themselves totally free of built-in “circumstances” – they include elements of Intentions or Circumstances in the nature of their Object, which sounds disturbingly similar to your comments noted above. What?? This sounds to be a problem, because we might have expected that the object of an intrinsically immoral object should be definable without reference to Intentions and Circumstances.

Yet, this is not always the case. Eg. Fornication includes a reference to the “circumstance” that neither of the parties is married. Adultry includes a reference to the circumstance that one of the parties is not married to the other. Lying includes a reference to the Intention to deceive. And so on….

The only sane conclusion to reach about this is that references to Intentions and Circumstances CAN be included in the object of an intrinsically evil act. [Otherwise, you’d have to say that the Church doctrine on intrinsic evil, and its specific instances thereof, is all malarkey!]

Does this screw up the meaning of CCC1756 (“There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object”.)

Well – only if you are looking to create confusion! But it is easily avoided confusion when approached with a touch of common sense. When intention and circumstances are spoken of as sources of morality over and above the object of the act THEN we are speaking of intentions and circumstances over and above those included in the definition of the act itself.

So yes, the Object of an intrinsically evil act can include references to circumstances or intent. In fact, the distinction between fornication and adultery relies exactly in the circumstances!

What the Pope is is saying in Veritas Splendor is: if the object of the act is sinful then intent or circumstance–intent or circumstances over and above those referred to in the object – cannot make the act good

This makes sense. If the object of abortion includes killing someone in the circumstance that the person is innocent, and if killing innocents is wrong, then abortion is going to be wrong regardless of what other circumstances or intents may apply to it. You can’t justify abortion because of any **other **intent or circumstance because there is already an evil (the killing of a person who is in the circumstance of being innocent) built into the object of the act.

Similarly, if we define torture such that it involves the disproportionate infliction of pain then we have included a reference to an evil circumstance in the object of torture. Inflicting pain is not itself wrong–otherwise we could never punish people–but to inflict disproportionate pain is wrong.

Source: jimmyakin.com/2006/11/intrinsic_evil.html

 

[LucyEm]

… because we might have expected that the object of an intrinsically immoral object should be definable without reference to Intentions and Circumstances.

Oopsie…typo - that should have been: because we might have expected that the **object **of an intrinsically immoral Act should be definable…

 

[Jaaanosik]

In post #87, you are trying to conflate the authority to act of an individual with the authority of the state who are charged with protecting the common good. There are very important differences.

I addressed those differences in my post #9.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12347558#post12347558

The traditional teaching of the Church recognises that both just war and capital punishment can possibly serve the common good in certain circumstances as legitimate defenses of the common good. Those deliberate measures apply only to the state.

At the time when a person is judged it’s the person, person’s conscience and Jesus.
There is no hiding behind a state, priest, spiritual adviser, …
If a state orders to do evil stuff is a soldier supposed to follow orders or conscience?
My pick is clear; conscience rules!
The post explains how I see the deliberate decision.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Let’s start off with the above. Always good to build from a point of agreement!

Now you’ve made a couple of similar statements to the above, such as:

Now, I agree with these statements to a degree, but I resist the temptation (which you do not) to be rather flexible in determining the moral object, as I hope the following clarifies.

Your statements above touch on the nature of “Intrinsic Evil”. Let’s remember what that is:

So, here again we have the Pope saying Intentions and Circumstances can’t transform what is intrinsically evil [which is reflected in CCC1761]

It’s interesting to hunt around and make a list of just what “intrinsic evils” has the Church identified. There are quite a few actually and you can find them in various places such as in Guardium et Spes, Veritas Splendor, etc. And when you look at them, you discover that they are not themselves totally free of built-in “circumstances” – they include elements of Intentions or Circumstances in the nature of their Object, which sounds disturbingly similar to your comments noted above. What?? This sounds to be a problem, because we might have expected that the object of an intrinsically immoral object should be definable without reference to Intentions and Circumstances.

Yet, this is not always the case. Eg. Fornication includes a reference to the “circumstance” that neither of the parties is married. Adultry includes a reference to the circumstance that one of the parties is not married to the other. Lying includes a reference to the Intention to deceive. And so on….

The only sane conclusion to reach about this is that references to Intentions and Circumstances CAN be included in the object of an intrinsically evil act. [Otherwise, you’d have to say that the Church doctrine on intrinsic evil, and its specific instances thereof, is all malarkey!]

Does this screw up the meaning of CCC1756 (“There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object”.)

Well – only if you are looking to create confusion! But it is easily avoided confusion when approached with a touch of common sense. When intention and circumstances are spoken of as sources of morality over and above the object of the act THEN we are speaking of intentions and circumstances over and above those included in the definition of the act itself.

So yes, the Object of an intrinsically evil act can include references to circumstances or intent. In fact, the distinction between fornication and adultery relies exactly in the circumstances!

What the Pope is is saying in Veritas Splendor is: if the object of the act is sinful then intent or circumstance–intent or circumstances over and above those referred to in the object – cannot make the act good

This makes sense. If the object of abortion includes killing someone in the circumstance that the person is innocent, and if killing innocents is wrong, then abortion is going to be wrong regardless of what other circumstances or intents may apply to it. You can’t justify abortion because of any **other **intent or circumstance because there is already an evil (the killing of a person who is in the circumstance of being innocent) built into the object of the act.

Similarly, if we define torture such that it involves the disproportionate infliction of pain then we have included a reference to an evil circumstance in the object of torture. Inflicting pain is not itself wrong–otherwise we could never punish people–but to inflict disproportionate pain is wrong.

Source: jimmyakin.com/2006/11/intrinsic_evil.html

It appears you still do not understand what I am saying. Here it’s again.

There is no moral object if there is no agent acting with intentions and under some circumstances.
The intentions and circumstances shape the moral object.

The first step is to identify what is what and we are** not interested in morality of the sources** at this stage.
An act can have possible moral objects A, B, C and D. This is what I mean ‘shaping the moral object’; analyzing which one it is; there is no separation between the intentions, circumstances, possible consequences, … at this stage. No morality of any source yet as well.

Then the second stage comes and the morality of the sources is identified independently now. Only at this stage we can say that the intentions, circumstances do not change the morality of the act if the moral object is evil; and I agree with that.

 

[LucyEm]

Then the second stage comes and the morality of the sources is identified independently now. Only at this stage we can say that the intentions, circumstances do not change the morality of the act if the moral object is evil; and I agree with that.

In post #1, you correctly said that tube romoval in ectopic pregnancy is not murder. When you can state that metho injection is murder, and that the Intentions and circumstances beyond the definition of murder, i.e. ectopic pregnancy, don’t change that, then i can be sure sure you’re on-board!

 

[Jaaanosik]

In post #1, you correctly said that tube romoval in ectopic pregnancy is not murder. When you can state that metho injection is murder, and that the Intentions and circumstances beyond the definition of murder, i.e. ectopic pregnancy, don’t change that, then i can be sure sure you’re on-board!

I can not say that the injection is a murder because I see the death as the consequence and not as the moral object.
I see the tube removal as the mutilation though. It’s not acceptable to do the evil for pretending that we are not killing anybody. This hypocrisy is just pure nonsense.

 

[LucyEm]

I can not say that the injection is a murder because I see the death as the consequence and not as the moral object.
I see the tube removal as the mutilation though.

LOL. Death is always a consequence or murder!!

You seek to change the moral object by factoring in circumstances which are beyond the definition of the Act itself. That is exactly what the Catechism says you may not do! [And this is what I canvassed in my somewhat lengthy recent post discussing Intrinsically Evil Acts.]

The act (metho injection to pregnant woman…) fits exactly the intrinsically evil Act the Pope described. It must be that you also reject the (infallible) statement of the Pope in EVANGELIUM VITAE 57 then, as well as various other elements of the Catechism. I do keep asking you what is the source of your brand of moral theology LoL??

 

[LucyEm]

I see the tube removal as the mutilation though.

Are all surgeries immoral?

 

[LongingSoul]

I can not say that the injection is a murder because I see the death as the consequence and not as the moral object.
I see the tube removal as the mutilation though. It’s not acceptable to do the evil for pretending that we are not killing anybody. This hypocrisy is just pure nonsense.

The distinction is a critical one and an easy one. To directly euthanase the baby is murder. To treat the fallopian tube is to save the mothers life. Without that distinction, we’ll end up with the horrible experience of the Netherlands where euthanasia is out of control and death is becoming an increasingly common ‘treatment’ for mental illnesses.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2779624/Number-mentally-ill-patients-killed-euthanasia-Holland-trebles-year-doctors-warn-assisted-suicide-control.html

 

[Jaaanosik]

LOL. Death is always a consequence or murder!!

You seek to change the moral object by factoring in circumstances which are beyond the definition of the Act itself. That is exactly what the Catechism says you may not do! [And this is what I canvassed in my somewhat lengthy recent post discussing Intrinsically Evil Acts.]

There two issues here.
The first one is related to the first stage analysis of what is what. Whether the moral object is A, or B, or C, … At this moment it’s not important if the moral object definition includes some intentions, circumstances in it or not. The reality is the same; if an act has to be morally accessed then the intentions, circumstances, consequences, … are inseparable in identifying what is the moral object of the act.
The second issue is definition of the moral object itself. Does it have to include intentions and circumstances to some degree? I don’t think so.
Is the moral object of a murder intentional killing, unjust killing, deliberate killing, …?
It appears to me the killing itself is terrible, bad, wrong, evil - intrinsically, because it violates the most fundamental good/inclination of a human person/human nature. This is as objective as it can be and it represents the objective natural moral law.
When the moral object of an act ends up being the killing then we can say it’s deliberate because the agent chose it as the moral object.

The act (metho injection to pregnant woman…) fits exactly the intrinsically evil Act the Pope described. It must be that you also reject the (infallible) statement of the Pope in EVANGELIUM VITAE 57 then, as well as various other elements of the Catechism. I do keep asking you what is the source of your brand of moral theology LoL??

Let me give you an example.
A person is bitten by a snake at ankle. The venom does the damage and the person gets to a good hospital were a serum is available. A doctor has two options, use the serum or cut the leg. Cutting the leg is a mutilation because there is another option, less harmful, how to treat the injury. The surgery is immoral. If this happens somewhere far away where the serum is not available and delivery is not possible on time then the surgery would be called amputation and it’s moral.
The first doctor would have chosen to harm the patient, that would be the moral object.
The second doctor would have chosen to save the life of the patient and this would be the moral object in this case. We can say that the first doctor deliberately, with wrong intentions cuts the leg but the second doctor does not have another option, the cutting is not deliberate, it’s not done with wrong intentions.

I don’t see the injection as the deliberate abortion. It’s the only option how to save the woman without doing any more harm to her.
Cutting the tube takes away a possible future procreation away. I see it as the mutilation because another procedure is available.
The argument might be that injection has an alternative option how it can be treated as well - the tube cutting.
Well, I don’t see it that way because the tube cutting is mutilation and it’s intrinsically evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. Therefore that option is not available and the injection is the only option left.
When the only option left is the injection then it’s like the amputation, it’s a moral procedure. The moral object is to save the life and definitely the moral object is not a deliberate abortion.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The distinction is a critical one and an easy one. To directly euthanase the baby is murder. To treat the fallopian tube is to save the mothers life. Without that distinction, we’ll end up with the horrible experience of the Netherlands where euthanasia is out of control and death is becoming an increasingly common ‘treatment’ for mental illnesses.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2779624/Number-mentally-ill-patients-killed-euthanasia-Holland-trebles-year-doctors-warn-assisted-suicide-control.html

I disagree. It’s a mutilation, an intrinsically evil act.
Please, see my previous post for the explanation.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t see the injection as the deliberate abortion. It’s the only option how to save the woman without doing any more harm to her.
Cutting the tube takes away a possible future procreation away. I see it as the mutilation because another procedure is available.

The other ‘treatment’ available you are suggesting is the direct killing of a human being. It is unlawful. Read Thomas Aquinas definition of double effect.

Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.

Directly killing the baby is not a ‘treatment’. It is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense. That’s the clincher. The baby deserves just as much respect as his mother.

 

[LucyEm]

…The second issue is definition of the moral object itself. Does it have to include intentions and circumstances to some degree? I don’t think so.
Is the moral object of a murder intentional killing, unjust killing, deliberate killing, …?
It appears to me the killing itself is terrible, bad, wrong, evil - intrinsically, because it violates the most fundamental good/inclination of a human person/human nature. This is as objective as it can be and it represents the objective natural moral law.
When the moral object of an act ends up being the killing then we can say it’s deliberate because the agent chose it as the moral object.

The definition of intrinsically evil acts incorporates the relevant Intentions and Circumstances. Consider the definitions of Murder, Adultery, Lying as examples. We don’t speak of the moral object of Talking or Copulating. We don’t speak of the moral object of words in the dictionary, but only of human acts - for it is they that contain the necessary content to be assessed.

The MORAL object of murder must be an evil MORALLY - not merely a bad, regrettable, even evil (in the physical sense) thing. This is why the qualifiers on killing are incorporated. I see you are focussed on the “objective” but you may be overlooking the “Moral” bit.

The moral object of abortion is not just killing. But rather killing someone in the circumstances that that person is innocent. We know killing innocents is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong regardless of what other circumstances or intents may apply.

A person is bitten by a snake at ankle. The … person gets to a good hospital were a serum is available. A doctor has two options, use the serum or cut the leg. Cutting the leg is a mutilation because there is another option, less harmful, how to treat the injury. The surgery is immoral. If this happens … where the serum is not available … then the surgery would be called amputation and it’s moral.
The first doctor would have chosen to harm the patient, that would be the moral object.
The second doctor would have chosen to save the life of the patient and this would be the moral object in this case. We can say that the first doctor deliberately, with wrong intentions cuts the leg but the second doctor does not have another option, the cutting is not deliberate, it’s not done with wrong intentions.

If the first doctor believed he was taking the measures truly in the best interests of the patient, he did not act immorally. Perhaps he was grossly incompetent, for sure.

If the (first) doctor chose surgery knowing it was not required, not the best approach, then the amputation has become the moral end, and his act was evil.

The (second) doctor who chooses surgery because it is truly the best option acts morally. Amputation of a limb is a physical evil - but it is not morally evil unless it is the intended end, or the moral object. Physical evil can be tolerated, and even intended, as a bad means to a good end, as long as the physical evil is also not moral evil. The doctor intends to use the physical evil of amputation as a bad means to a good end. This intention and act is moral because the bad means is not moral evil, but only physical evil, and the good consequence of saving a life outweighs the bad consequence of losing a limb.

Note that it’s called “moral object”, not “physical object”. Amputating a leg beset with gangrene in order to save the patient is not just “to amputate a limb”, but “to amputate a sick limb that threatens life”.

I don’t see the injection as the deliberate abortion. It’s the only option how to save the woman without doing any more harm to her.

In the above statement, you appear to neglect any moral duty the doctor has toward the baby. Is this because you believe:

• the early unborn are not owed a duty?
• this early unborn is doomed anyway?
• this early unborn is not an innocent?
  The mind boggles that murdering another person can be considered “an option”. Back to the snake bite - can you imagine that it would be OK for the second doctor to kill an innocent (specific scenario not required) in order to get his hands on serum in order to avoid amputation?

Cutting the tube takes away a possible future procreation away. I see it as the mutilation because another procedure is available.

The other procedure you refer to (metho injection) is “intrinsically evil”, and the circumstances can’t change that. A moral agent could not agree that this procedure is “available”.

The argument might be that injection has an alternative option how it can be treated as well - the tube cutting.
Well, I don’t see it that way because the tube cutting is mutilation and it’s intrinsically evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. Therefore that option is not available and the injection is the only option left.

What? You can’t do a surgery on the woman, but you can kill a baby? !! As stated above - killing the baby is not an option because **it **is Intrinsically Evil. As per a moral amputation, tube removal is a physical evil for sure, but NOT a moral evil.

The moral object is to save the life and definitely the moral object is not a deliberate abortion.

You are arguing that tube removal is intrinsically evil because it could have been avoided by simply killing the baby! This is utilitarian, but it is not moral.

The Intention is to save the life of mum in the Circumstances of ectopic pregnancy. These things reside outside the definition of the Intrinsically Evil Act, therefore they cannot make said act moral. They cannot change the moral object.

The moral object of metho injection is plainly to kill the baby, which is an intrinsic evil.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The other ‘treatment’ available you are suggesting is the direct killing of a human being. It is unlawful. Read Thomas Aquinas definition of double effect.

Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.

Directly killing the baby is not a ‘treatment’. It is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense. That’s the clincher. The baby deserves just as much respect as his mother.

Showing the respect to baby that can not be saved by doing evil to the mother.
The mother does not deserve the respect? Does evil have to be done to her?